Re: [Epic] marine chapters (was: Orks with LandRaiders)

From: Joseph Michael Looney <mlooney_at_...>
Date: Thu, 04 Sep 1997 03:58:17 -0500

MCLAUGHLIN, RICHARD A. CPT wrote:

> In a related note. Targeting: I do not think all units should be
> able to ignore closer detachments for juicer targets. Now before you
> "Flame On", remember I said not "all". Titans and other special
> "elite" units could probably ignore targeting restrictions because
> they have special missions and priority of fires (as in 40K).
>
> Picture if you will, a detachment on fall back order is covered with
> blast markers. Another detachment at 100% strength moves forward to
> engage the enemy units pursuing his comrades. This is called
> "Bounding Overwatch" and "Covering Fire" (A very good thing in combat
> if you are the unit covered with blast markers I might add). IIRC the
> enemy can ignore the unit attacking it and fire on the fall back unit
> even though it is farther away or even BEHIND another detachment.
> COME ON!
>
> Well that's my opinion.
<rant>
Ok, how about this one, you are a detachment of SM devs. You have a
detachment of 5 gretchen 35cm arway from you. You have a detachment of
15 Ork Shooty boys 40cm away from you, on over watch orders. Which one
is a threat? Under your concept, well, looks like the grots are toast
and you have to eat the Shooty boys return fire. Damm, I hate it when
that happens. A set of rules should not make the tatical calls for the
player. They should allow him to make what ever move this is unit is
capable of.

And for the record leaping in front the enemey to cover a retreating
unit is NOT "bonding overwatch" or "Covering Fire", at least that is not
what I was taught. Blasting the crap out of the enemey unit that will
be firing at the retreating friends IS, on the other hand. But of
course I have my screen of low point useless troops out in front so you
can't do that.....

GW targeting rules have allways been one of their dumber rules. All of
this, of course, is because their habbit of making "super troop" units
that, if allowed to get close to you will wipe out 10x their numbers.
The didn't want you to be able to aim all your fire at the turkey that
would be eating your lunch if he (or she, in some cases) gets close, so
they came up with this targeting concept. If you could do this, of
course all the cheesy 12-15 year olds (and that is a concept, not an
age) would be crying "but my 200 pt Chaos Master Blaster Commander with
his kill-them-all-god-will-know-his-own weapon just got killed by a
squad of 10 point troops. That's not fair. Lower point value troops
should not be able to kill higher point troops, you have to have your
own cheesy boy to kill my cheese boy." E40K avoids this problem by not
having command figures that will wipe out whole unit in HTH combat.

The "lower point value" units vs "higher point value" argument, which I
heard, more or less in those exact words, seems to be a problem with GW
games. In a WWII micro armor game you very rarely hear a German player
saying that your T-34 should not be able to kill my Tiger-II because the
Tiger cost more. You might hear that a T-34 can't effect a Tiger-II at
X meters, but that is a real world argument, not a game argument. The
fact that the big cat can kill the russki at twice the range that the
T-34 can shoot back at is just a fact of life. If the German lets the
Russian get close or get a flank on him, well, thing like this happen.

Sorry about ranting this morning, I am waiting on a site tech to get
their #_at_$@ act togther....

</rant>
Received on Thu Sep 04 1997 - 08:58:17 UTC